Would Healing Be Considered Work?

[Stephan Huller]

Just curious how strong the evidence is for healing being considered work on the Sabbath and what the context? Easier to see how Jesus traveling might have violated the Sabbath.

[Stephan Huller]

You see my instinct was correct https://books.google.com/books?id=ROLrB ... =html_text This is a bullshit excuse. Another rewrite from the second century. The issue isn't likely to be "healing = work." There was something else at work here. Something buried in the original Marcionite layer to the text. Why the Sabbath? Why healing again and again? Why the confrontation (some might say provocation)?

[Bertie]

One thought — remember that the author's agenda may not be to represent his opponents accurately but to smear them, whether or not the author actually understood his opponent's positions or not. Of course, this could be because the author (or interpolator) was really a mid-2nd Century "proto-orthodox" type long separated from Judaism who wouldn't know what Jews of his time really believed anyway. But it could also be because the author was a Jew (or a god-fearer recently estranged) in conflict with other Jews who did know what his opponent's position was but chose to distort it for his own literary agenda.

Now, that last sentence would be a pretty weak ad-hoc explanation if it were deployed only for this healing story bit. But as you probably know, inter-Jewish conflict is a pretty standard interpretation for Matthew especially (it being both the most Jewish and most anti-Jewish of the Gospels, the calumnies against the Jews there having ample parallels in the Old Testament prophets, and so on). And the New Testament authors having literary agendas that override mundane accuracy concerns is a very widely held thing. So while your theory may be a good fit for the evidence on this point, the "mainstream" probably isn't out to dry on this one, either.

Maybe try to find not just one but all of the places in the Gospels where an "Oral Torah" conflict is taking place and see how many times the New Testament represents the rabbis (or at least a minority opinion) mostly right versus how many times it misses entirely. (People have probably done papers on this sort of thing at some point). The Gospels being wrong every time would be a different level of evidence versus being wrong just once.

(One more thing — I have no idea when rabbinical Judaism's rules regarding life-saving and Sabbath start getting written down (none of it before the Mishnah, of course), but reading the state of the debate in the Talmud back into New Testament times is something fraught with critical difficulties in its own right).

[DCHindley]

I have no idea when rabbinical Judaism's rules regarding life-saving and Sabbath start getting written down (none of it before the Mishnah, of course), but reading the state of the debate in the Talmud back into New Testament times is something fraught with critical difficulties in its own right).

If Neusner is right and the Mishnah represented idealizations of what 2nd temple practice should have been like, I would have to suppose that older traditions were remembered and sifted to leave a "standard" practice. When there were differences in practice, they were presented as options, but with one preferred as the "norm." However, I am not so sure that we can place a lot of confidence in the individual figures (rabbis) they associated with these differences of tradition. The formal use of Rabbi as a title for these semi-legendary figures may reflect 3rd century (after 200, when the Mishnah was written down and the traditions fixed), but like Greek "kurios" (lord), the term "rab" may have been long used as the Hebrew/Aramaic form of respectful address to someone with authority, even before then.

Jus' my 2 cents ...

DCH

[ficino]

There was a thread on the Bethesda Fountain healing in John 5 a while ago. I thought the "work on the Sabbath" issue there was whether the healed man carried his pallet in violation of laws about the Sabbath. That's the objection that "the Jews" make to the healed man. Later, at verse 16, it says that "the Jews" persecuted and sought to kill Jesus because he had done "these things" on the sabbath. It's not specified whether healing counts as one of the things, but I should think one is supposed to infer that it is.

[Stephan Huller]

So while your theory may be a good fit for the evidence on this point, the "mainstream" probably isn't out to dry on this one, either.

I didn't know I had a 'theory' Bertie. I am just trying to figure it out.

The great things about halakhah is that is generally based on some rational thread (even if it isn't always clear). Let's ask the question of whether a mother can try to 'heal' or make her child better on the Sabbath. The modern example of a woman in childbirth is instructive I think https://books.google.com/books?id=XGEMT ... sh&f=false Even though this is a radical example I can't help but feel that there is a general principle here. Of course it is difficult to say what the pre-Christian Jewish interpretation would be. But I see nothing in the Pentateuch that would prevent someone from healing someone else. The greater problem seems to be Jesus traveling to someone to heal them (i.e. contradicting a prohibition on movement which is well-established).

[Stephan Huller]

There was a thread on the Bethesda Fountain healing in John 5 a while ago.

Interesting point ficino. This saying in particular seems to have been in a variant form in the Diatessaron known to one of the Syriac Church Fathers (Ishodad of Merv?) Time to consult the BCH search engine I think.

[Stephan Huller]

Before I do that I just wonder though if a man didn't move on the Sabbath (i.e. didn't travel) what objections could there be to him 'healing someone.' There is also the issue of the 'fasting' of the Sabbath in the discussion of 'the disciples of John' in that periscope in Mark. Why does Mark have such a strange interpretation of the Sabbath? The Marcionites (according to Epiphanius) fasted on the Sabbath. He says that's because they hated the Creator (of course, that's a stock answer). But the question is why is there always such an idiosyncratic interpretation of the Sabbath in early Christianity? Given that it wasn't a clear cut 'prohibition' on healing on the Sabbath, why make it one of the centerpieces of the gospel? It's an odd thing to keep repeating given the apparent ambiguity, no?

[Stephan Huller]

The variant Diatessaronic text (a mix of John and Mark) is found in the writings of Jacob of Serug:

Dom Connolly remarks that in Ephrem's Commentary on the Story of the infirm man at the pool of Bethesda (John v; Moesinger, pp. 143 — 145) two points attract attention: 'i°. that Ephrem's copy of the Diatessaron contained the verse which tells of the moving of the water by an angel, and 2°. that in quoting our Lord's words to the infirm man Ephrem seems to confuse them with those addressed to the paralytic at Capernaum (Mt. ix 6 ; Mk. ii n ; Lk. v n). He cites the words thus ((Moesinger, p. 146): 'Surge, tolle grabbatum tuuvi et vade' ; 'Sta in pedibus, sume grabbatum tuum, et vade in do mum tuairC ; 'Is qui me sanavit, (Me) dixit mihi: Surge tolle lectum tuum et vade'. Dom Connolly adds that the Curetonian Syriac John v. 8 has a similar reading : 'Arise, take up thy bed and walk and go to thy house'.

He quotes further JACOB OF SERUG (c. 521) who sometimes made use of Tatian's Harmony, and who in a Homily 'on that Paralytic of thirty eight years whom our Lord healed" seems to identify the healing of the paralytic at Capernaum with that of the infirm man at Bethesda and says that 'there can be no reasonable doubt that he did so on the authority of the Diatessaron.' [Plooij, A Further Study of the Liege Diatessaron p. 20]


Tatian was bold enough to identify the paralytic of Capernaum with the infirm man at Bethesda, and to combine the two accounts. Yet it appears that is precisely what Tatian did do.

In the J. T.S. of July 1907 (vol. viii pp. 581 ff) I pointed out that Jacob of Serugh (t 521) sometimes made use of Tatian's Harmony, and apparently followed its order in a series of Homilies on the passion. Now in Bedjan's edition of the Homilies of Jacob there is one entitled 'On that paralytic of thirty-eight years whom our Lord healed ' (vol. iv pp. 701-724). The author begins by picturing the plight of the world, sick with sin and waiting to be healed by the waters of baptism. It resembles the ' paralytic ' who was waiting for the moving of the waters at Bethesda. I proceed to give in his own words an I proceed to give in his own words an outline of Jacob's treatment of this miracle. (p. 703) "The world resembled that sick man, who was paralysed by the sickness of which he was ailing : thirty-eight years had he been afflicted on the bed of disease, and then he was healed of his sickness. (p. 704)

For he also was waiting for the moving of the waters . . . and to Siloam he had recourse and took refuge, that it might heal his disease . . . And he was waiting for the moving of the waters, that by it he might be made sound The waters were moved with a mystery of Baptism ; and the first disease which went down was healed. The diseases of the world were surrounding that House of Kindness (Bith HesdA), and waiting for the moving of the waters to make them whole, (p. 705) The diseased were many that were to be healed by Siloam; and each disease was healed only at a long interval. The ailments and diseases were round about the baptism, they might be made whole ... By an angel the waters were moved there ; and the first who went down and bathed was healed . . . (p. 708) He (Jesus) took away the mystery from Siloam, that it should heal no more . . . He saw the sick lying in that House of Kindness {Bith Hesdd), and waiting for the moving of the waters to heal them . . . He saw the paralytic, whose diseases had vexed him a great while; and. He drew near to him to speak to him gently . . . He drew near to him then, and He asks ... him : ' If thou wouldst become whole (Jowl? \ -e\ .\.»), hide it not from me ' . . . (p. 709) ' Lord, I have no man to raise me up over the spring and, when the waters have moved, to throw me (uAioyjuj1) into it, that I may be healed. My limbs are paralysed, and to approach and push my way I am not able ; and caretakers (ko^ ».Sfl») are not found for me to stand up on my behalf.' . . . (p. 710) He drew near to him, and asks him, as ye have heard, if he would become whole Joon?) of his sickness ... 'If thou wouldst become whole, thou canst 2 : Thy sins are the cause of thy diseases, and they are forgiven thee (Mt ix 2, and parallels). Arise, be made sound (MV^Y) of f thy disease which ails thee : lo, I have given thee the power. Thy sins are forgiven : give thy consent to the healing.' (p. 711) Albeit (these words) were spoken to the paralytic alone, (yet) the whole world received tidings of its healing . . . ' With the cord of debts thou art tied, O man, and I loose thee. I ask of only that thou will, and I will heal thee ... If thou wouldst become whole (\ vn «N .. JooiLf), there is a means : thy debts are forgiven : do not resist me as to thy healing.' ...

(p. 712) He was asking him : 'If,' said He, 'thou wouldst, thou art 'If thou wouldst become whole, thou canst ... If thou wouldst, healing also is given thee.' . . . (p. 716) Our Lord says: 'Thy debts are forgiven, my son, be of good heart ' (cf. Mt. ix 3) . . . The head and chief of physicians visited the paralytic, and forgiveness of debts He held out (and) gave to him with healing. In the beginning of His healing He first visited that festering sea of sins ; for it is the cause of all diseases . . . ' Thy debts are forgiven,' He said to him that was paralysed . . . Sins He forgave him, from which also the sickness was sprung, that by forgiveness he might be made sound (MV^-i) before the healing, (p. 717). The Good Physician bound up the soul before the body, that it first might become whole which was (first) sick . . . ' Be of good heart, thy debts are forgiven ' (Mt. ix 3), He was saying to him ; and they that

Thus far Jn. v 1-7 : except that the sick man ia called a 'paralytic'.

(1) Jacob makes the name of the pond Siloam (he uses Beth Hesda, ' House of Kindness ', rather as an epithet than a proper name). So Ephraim (Moes. p. 146): 'Si enim credunt, per aquam Siloe angelum sanasse infirmum,' &c. (cf. Jn. ix 7, n).

(2) Jacob (Bedjan, p. 709), after quoting : ' Lord, I have no man,' &c., goes on : ' My limbs are paralysed, and to approach and push my way I am not able, and caretakers (ko^ ».Sfl») are not found for me to stand up on my behalf.

(p. 170) He drew near to him, and asks him, as ye have heard, if he would become whole Joon?) of his sickness ... 'If thou wouldst become whole, thou canst 2 : Thy sins are the cause of thy diseases, and they are forgiven thee (Mt. ix 2, and parallels). Arise, be made sound (»Jk»7) of thy disease which ails thee : lo, I have given thee the power. Thy sins are forgiven : give thy consent to the healing.' (p. 711) Albeit (these words) were spoken to the paralytic alone, (yet) the whole world received tidings of its healing ... With the cord of debts thou art tied, O man, and I loose thee. I ask of thee only that thou will, and I will heal thee ... If thou wouldst become whole (\ vn «N .. JooiLf), there is a means : thy debts are forgiven : do not resist me as to thy healing.' ... (p. 712) He was asking him : 'If,' said He, 'thou wouldst, thou art healed ... 'If thou wouldst become whole, thou canst ... If thou wouldst, healing also is given thee.' . . . (p. 716) Our Lord says: 'Thy debts are forgiven, my son, be of good heart ' (cf. Mt. ix 3) . . . The head and chief of physicians visited the paralytic, and forgiveness of debts He held out (and) gave to him with healing. In the beginning of His healing He first visited that festering sea of sins ; for it is the cause of all diseases . . . ' Thy debts are forgiven,' He said to him that was paralysed . . . Sins He forgave him, from which also the sickness was sprung, that by forgiveness he might be made sound (»»is*j) before the healing, (p. 717) The Good Physician bound up the soul before the body, that it first might become whole which was (first) sick . . . ' Be of good heart, thy debts are forgiven ' (Mt. ix 3), He was saying to him ; and they that ...

This is as far as I can get in the Google partial view. It would seem however that there was a variant text that made Jesus's claim to be a god (i.e. that he could forgive sins) as the central issue. Notice that the assumption of the author is that it is a Jubilee (i.e. the redemption from sins and debts). I've always argued that is behind the Aramaic terminology 'gospel' i.e. that Jesus arrived in a Jubilee.

https://books.google.com/books?id=X20MA ... CB4Q6AEwAA

[Stephan Huller]

Sorry about the sloppy citation but it's a lot of work going back and forth in a limited Google preview and cobble together a paragraph let alone go past a page (especially in the old books where Google can't follow the original discussion). It would seem though that the Diatessaron used by Jacob of Serug (and not that which is cited in the Commentary on the Diatessaron attributed to Ephrem) not only is there a seamless blending of John 5 and Mark 2. Interestingly though Matthew is a lot shorter than Mark:

Matthew 9

Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. 2 Some men brought to him a paralyzed man, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the man, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.” 3 At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!” 4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5 Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” 7 Then the man got up and went home.

Mark 2

A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. 2 They gathered in such large numbers that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. 3 Some men came, bringing to him a paralyzed man, carried by four of them. 4 Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus by digging through it and then lowered the mat the man was lying on. 5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” 6 Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7 “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, “Why are you thinking these things? 9 Which is easier: to say to this paralyzed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’? 10 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!”

Let's suppose that Matthew 'shortened' Mark. It is interesting that it is not healing on the Sabbath but claiming to have the authority to forgive sins which was the original point of Mark 2.